Future of dogfighting

[Viggen]

mm, so whats the difference? they are still manned in way or another, theres just no direct risk to the peson controlling it.

The diffrence is with the pilot. If you controll a aircraft from the ground, almost anyone will be qualified to fly one. You dont need to have stamina, upper body strength. You dont suffer from the G-forces. Besides fom actually flying and being 20000ft up in the air, pilots are cool because they can withstand alot of beating in the aircraft and still do their job. They put their lives on the line.

A person remote controlling an aircraft from the ground is not what i would call a pilot. Also by removing the pilot from the cockpit, the aircraft can pull much sharper turns with higher G´s for a prolonged time. Now how fun would that be at an airshow? It would just look at the same as these small R/C aircraft you fly yourself, but in a bigger scale. Ok, they are fun to watch but its not as fun and impressive as the real deal.

Would you still like to fly a 39 Gripen if it was unmanned, sitting infront a screen or with viritual glasses? 

[Flanker.94]

Imagine flying a R/C Su-37! That would be awesome!

[Cobra2]

Good point Viggen. I think pilots are awesome for what they do and how amazingly they fly 

[Gripen]

Whats the range on a UCAV and its link to the ground?

[Raptor]

Oh... Future of dogfighting? I don't see any. Dogfighting would be totally ruled out.

But just for fun? Supermanueverability. And a great set of sensors. You could just jink out of the missiles' way...

[Viggen]

Range could be unlimited, since they probably use satellites in orbit to link up the signals. But we all know how good that is,  suddenly you loose contact and down it goes. 

I dont know the range of the Predator thats in use today. But dont they use a C-130 to follow for longer missions?

[Viggen]

Imagine flying a R/C Su-37! That would be awesome!

Here you have a few R/C controlled and jetpropelled aircraft, MIG29,F-22 and F-15. 

http://www.rcairgallery.com/pages/viewvideo.php?video=43&size=2&id=8ffe1e1e0dc4c760984d720bbd67cde0

http://www.rcairgallery.com/pages/viewvideo.php?video=112&size=2&id=8ffe1e1e0dc4c760984d720bbd67cde0

http://www.rcairgallery.com/pages/viewvideo.php?video=105&size=2&id=8ffe1e1e0dc4c760984d720bbd67cde0

[Webmaster]

Range could be unlimited, since they probably use satellites in orbit to link up the signals. But we all know how good that is,  suddenly you loose contact and down it goes. 

I dont know the range of the Predator thats in use today. But dont they use a C-130 to follow for longer missions?

Predator has already satellite data link for "over-the-horizon" missions.

C-130 following? I don't know, probably an option, but if you look at Iraq or Afghanistan, there are enough other platforms (AWACS, JSTARS) in the air that can data-link it to the control station.

It's really amazing what these datalinks do for warfare, and they're cranking up the bandwidth fast to keep up with the demand.

Different discussion though.... maybe time to start a topic of UAV operation and capabilities?

[Viggen]

I think we already have started a topic on unmanned fighters.
http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=108.0

[valkyrian]

I think that the future of dogfight is supermaneuvrability and the future of air combat is a well balanced mix of all the above.

I'll explain my self : stealth dictates a different design than the supermaneuvrability and supercruise. Supercruise is bad for stealth and also bad for supermaneuvrability. It is all a matter of trade offs..

[RecceJet]

I think for dogfighting the most important feature of the ones listed is Stealth.

Here are my reasons:

• For air-to-air missiles launched Within Visual Range (WVR) the launching aircraft's missiles need to see the target aircraft. If the target aircraft has a means to reduce its signature in the electromagnetic spectrum (be it radar or thermal) than it has the advantage.
• For good old-fashioned guns, I'm almost certain all modern fighters have radar ranging for their canons in order to provide the pilot with a Continuously Calculated Impact Point (CCIP) which shows up on the HUD as a circle with a pip to indicate where rounds will hit at any point in time should the attacker wish to fire. Again, with stealth features the radar for the canon will not be able to provide the pilot with the information he needs to aim at the target aircraft.

In both situations the attacker will be screaming in his cockpit because the fighter will not respond to his wishes. He may see his target and have the optimal firing position, but not be able to effect an attack (unless he causes a mid-air collision). In both situations the advantage of stealth is purely defensive, but this is because in a traditional dogfight both aircraft/pilots are assumed to be able to see each other. The opportunity to sneak up on an unsuspecting fighter has already passed. Stealth primarily assists in denying one's position and heading to an opponent in the BVR range, but as I pointed out above, it also has uses in the WVR dogfight scenario.

You could out-maneuver an aircraft perhaps, but what if your oppontent carries Python V? Of what use is supercruise when your speed bleeds off due to sharp turns in a dogfight anyway? If the scenario is set as a dogfight, the key to holding the upper hand is to render your opponent's technology obsolete. Stealth goes a long way to achieving that.

[valkyrian]

Hi there Reccejet! I see your points but i want to back up my argument.

I call dogfight the use of guns and short range missiles. The Mig 29 has a laser range finder for the gun, so lowering the planes' rcs, or infra red, or acoustic or visual signature won't do a lot.

What if a fighter can outmaneuver a missile? it needs to turn tighter than the missile. So supermaneuvrability is of paramount importance.

I agree with the rest of your thoughts.